Negligence — Survey and valuation — Property purchased at price above valuation — Statement of claim — Defendant applied to strike out statement — No reasonable cause of action — Particulars as to damages struck out — Proper measure of damages — Whether plaintiff had arguable case
The defendant carried out a survey and valuation of a mixed commercial and residential property for the plaintiff. The property was valued at £53,000 to £56,000. The plaintiff purchased the property and paid £60,000. It was alleged the property’s true value at the time was £52,500 as a maximum; the plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant claiming damages of £7,500, being the difference between the purchase price of £60,000 and the alleged true value of £52,500.
The defendant applied to have the action struck out as showing no reasonable cause of action. His contention was that the damages could not have been more than £500, the difference between the lower of the figures in the valuation and the alleged true value at the time. The district registrar refused the defendant’s application, but His Honour Judge Moylan (sitting as a High Court judge) struck out the particulars as to damages (December 18 1987). The plaintiff appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed and the particulars as to the damages were restored to the statement of claim. It was arguable whether the measure of damages for a negligent survey and valuation, based on the difference between the price paid by the plaintiff and the actual market value at the date of the purchase, depended on the plaintiff’s paying the price advised by the defendant: Perry v Sidney Phillips & Son [1982] 1 WLR 1297. Although it would seem that the principle as to the measure of damages in the Perry case could not apply where a plaintiff had paid more than advised by the defendant, the contrary view was arguable. The plaintiff had an arguable claim for £3,500 which should be tried.
Mark Raeside (instructed by Daynes Hill & Perks, of Norwich) appeared for the plaintiff; and Michael Yelton (instructed by Ollard & Bentley, of March) appeared for the defendant.